About the "antisemitism" discourse at universities
Artikel ansehen
Zusammenfassung ansehen
Yesterday I learned that the ludicrously broad definition of "antisemitism" currently being used to curtail speech against the ongoing genocide in Gaza was never intended to apply to speech at all, and that even its author is appalled by how it has been used to restrict academic speech:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20171107/106610/HHRG-115-JU00-Wstate-SternK-20171107.pdfKen Stern testimony to U.S. Congress in 2017:
"The definition was drafted to make it easier for data collectors [for European Monitoring Centre on
Racism and Xenophobia] to know what to put in their reports and what to reject. It focused their attention away from the question of whether the actor hated Jews, and focused them on whether the actor selected Jews to be victims."
February op-ed by Ken Stern in the
Boston Globe:
https://archive.is/cgcsd#selection-1467.0-1487.111"In 2022, a Tennessee bill used the IHRA definition to circumscribe what might be taught about Israel, potentially jeopardizing teachers who assign readings critical of Zionism or allow an “Israel Apartheid Week” demonstration. The bill was sponsored by a Republican legislator who once proposed making the Bible the state’s “official book” — and he also pushed a law that would remove “age-inappropriate” books from libraries. When asked what should be done with said books, he replied, “burn them.” When Jewish groups are aligning themselves with advocates of book-burning, something has gone seriously wrong."
March 2025 testimony by Ken Stern to the U.S. Senate:
https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/06e69363-9e5d-54f9-8019-dbe95168b2a9/Stern%20Testimony.pdf"I disagree with these young Jews about Zionism, but I’m not going to call them antisemites. I
certainly don’t want the government to do this, to effectively come down on one side or the
other of a deep, and sometimes visceral, communal divide."
